The idea of an infinite past

[DBT]

You believe you have. You are wrong. You have not explained why first cause is necessary or what first cause may be, nor how first cause itself got started, or appeared from nothing itself.

A first cause is necessary if the past is finite.

The past must be considered finite because a real completed infinity is rationally considered impossible until proven possible.

Is first cause - something from absolutely nothing (no quantum fluctuations, etc) - to be considered rationally possible? If so, why is something from nothing rational while an infinite past is not?

What is this 'first cause?' The Universe as self causation? Or a separate cause that brings the universe into existence?

Can you explain?

Just like flapping your arms to fly to the moon is considered impossible until proven possible.

All claims are considered impossible until at least they are shown to possibly be possible.

A real completed infinity is not possibly possible.

It is like saying the sun is having a mental breakdown.

You can't apply human psychological problems to reality and you can't apply imaginary mathematical constructions to reality.

There is no "one" in the real world. No square root of negative one. And no infinity.

Completely irrelevant. That is neither an an explanation or an argument that supports your proposition.

 

[untermensche]

Is first cause - something from absolutely nothing (no quantum fluctuations, etc) - to be considered rationally possible?

No.

Nothingness, true nothingness cannot rationally cause anything.

Time had to arise from something but that something would not be like anything we can observe.

The conditions from which time arose are completely unknown and unknowable. All that is known is there is not time as we can observe time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is first cause - something from absolutely nothing (no quantum fluctuations, etc) - to be considered rationally possible?

No.

Nothingness, true nothingness cannot rationally cause anything.

Time had to arise from something but that something would not be like anything we can observe.

The conditions from which time arose are completely unknown and unknowable. All that is known is there is not time as we can observe time.

Actually, it's not bad at all. Still a few hang-ups, but you're getting close. Congrat!
EB

 

[untermensche]

I'll work out the math later.

Unfortunately for me agreement is a bad thing.

I think some would say it is an easy out.

Just invent a world where change somehow exists but not time.

They would say I have not really eliminated infinity.

But that may just be a lack of imagination and the truth may be that a timeless state where change that isn't sequential or progressing may be the answer.

I am just trying to eliminate the idea that it is either infinity or time arising from absolute nothingness. I do not accept that they are the only two choices because we say so.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I might be wrong but you seem to be on your way. These are to solve largely independently from each other except that not solving one keeps you from looking at those further down the line. There's no true discovery there. It's all "realisation", as if it has always been there but unseen. Takes time but probably also something like a kind of "luck". And anyway, what's the use of that?

OK, now, you still haven't explained yourself about that contradiction in your view!

So there. We've still something to disagree about.
EB

 

[DBT]

Is first cause - something from absolutely nothing (no quantum fluctuations, etc) - to be considered rationally possible?

No.

Nothingness, true nothingness cannot rationally cause anything.

Time had to arise from something but that something would not be like anything we can observe.

The conditions from which time arose are completely unknown and unknowable. All that is known is there is not time as we can observe time.

Doesn't make sense. Even if the conditions that time arose from are unknown and unknowable, you are saying that there were conditions prior to time. 'Conditions' are something, not nothing, if conditions exist, whether knowable by us or not, existence implies definite attributes and features. Something is there

So according to your proposition, there must 'something' because nothing can come from nothing.

In other worlds, your something 'unknowable' looks suspiciously like the idea of eternity or infinity.

 

[untermensche]

...existence implies definite attributes and features...

No it does not.

You only know of one kind of existence.

You can speak of no other.

But we know for certain a real completed infinity of time is absurd and did not happen.

Again it is like saying the sun suffers from social anxiety.

You can't apply things to reality like pure mathematical inventions or human psychological problems. It makes absolutely no sense.

There is no "one" in reality, no square root of negative one, and definitely no infinity.

 

[Elixir]

....we know for certain a real completed infinity of time is absurd

You, and .... the frog in your pocket?

I know for certain that you cannot identify any object, state of being, or event that was not preceded by a a prior, causal object, state of being or event.
So a finite past is absurd, impossible, a figment of your imagination - BY YOUR OWN METRIC!

ETA: I am not expressing any certitude that there IS an infinite "past" within our space-time continuum. Just pointing out the folly of your own certitude. You should be a big boy and admit that YOU DON'T KNOW. "Seems absurd to me" is not evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

....we know for certain a real completed infinity of time is absurd

You, and .... the frog in your pocket?

I know for certain that you cannot identify any object, state of being, or event that was not preceded by a a prior, causal object, state of being or event.
So a finite past is absurd, impossible, a figment of your imagination - BY YOUR OWN METRIC!

Exactly!

What we sure don't know and have no experience of is definitely a beginning to time. QED.

You have to follow the logic wherever it leads you.

Unless you're not too logical to begin with.
EB

 

[untermensche]

....we know for certain a real completed infinity of time is absurd

You, and .... the frog in your pocket?

If my frog is rational.

You are basically saying the sun has social anxiety.

The time in the past was infinite.

Both make sense equally.

 

[DBT]

...existence implies definite attributes and features...

No it does not.

You only know of one kind of existence.

Yet you yourself speak of another existence - ''the conditions from which time arose are completely unknown and unknowable'' - which implies that you believe conditions existed prior to time.

This is what you need to address.

 

[Elixir]

....we know for certain a real completed infinity of time is absurd

You, and .... the frog in your pocket?

If my frog is rational.

If your frog was rational, he'd be laughing at you. Is he?

You are basically saying the sun has social anxiety.

No, Unter - that's what you are HEARING, not what I'm saying. The sun, as an aggregate entity, has a finite life-cycle and will blow in just a few billion years. Whther it has anxieties, or is in any other way sentient, is only a requirement for your ill-advised attempt at an analogy.

The time in the past was infinite. Both make sense equally.

I guess you are your own arbiter of what makes sense TO YOU.
Forgive me if I take the evidence of your self-aggrandizing maunderings to mean that you lack the qualifications to be an arbiter of what makes sense to anyone else.
As I have indicated, your certainty of a finite "past" is precisely as sensible as the assertion (which I am not making) that the past is infinite. But since you require yourself to have some kind of faux omniscience (giving you certainty of the finite nature of the past) to make yourself comfortable, I won't try any further to disabuse you of your delusion. But the fact remains; YOU DON'T KNOW, and have failed to address the opposing logic I gave you to consider.

 

[untermensche]

...existence implies definite attributes and features...

No it does not.

You only know of one kind of existence.

Yet you yourself speak of another existence - ''the conditions from which time arose are completely unknown and unknowable'' - which implies that you believe conditions existed prior to time.

This is what you need to address.

I don't speak of it.

I conclude it must exist.

Since time must be finite it requires a beginning that does not contain time as we understand time.

 

[untermensche]

I guess you are your own arbiter of what makes sense TO YOU.

Applying this mathematical partially defined entity to reality is exactly like applying human psychological conditions to reality.

Both make just as much sense.

Tell me why you think you can apply this invented mathematical entity to reality?

You can apply no other number to reality.

There is no "one" in the real world. One rock is not "one". It is a rock.

And there certainly is no infinity.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

The idea that conflicts with reality is the idea of a real completed infinity. The claim that a real completed infinity is somehow possible is a positive claim.

That is the claim that needs defending if we want to look at this rationally.

If the idea of a real completed infinity cannot be defended then rationally it is rejected and we are done with it.

Alternatively, untermensche, one who argues that real completed infinity conflicts with reality is making a positive claim, and I for one
simply don't accept that. Of course that declaration goes with qualifications. As a newcomer to this forum, (and thread), I don't know if
anyone here makes the claim of real completed infinities. Some things cannot exist in real completed infinities, but again only with some
qualifications. Those qualifications are "things" which again, I am agnostic about, and leave open for current speculation and later
acceptance or rejection, when I find adequate evidence and / or argument one way or another.

To say that: "If the idea of a real completed infinity cannot be defended, then rationally it is rejected", is wrong. The rational response is to say :-
"I don't know".

On the other hand, if there is good, positive, evidentially based reasoning to reject the idea of any real completed infinity, then it should be rejected.

I haven't come across any so far in my experience, but with limited scope, in within certain qualifications, some real completed infinities may
be impossible. But the qualifications I refer to are also unsettled, and only go so far as to say IF X THEN Y whereas IF NOT(P) THEN Q, and so on.
In other words, the X's and P's are undecided, (in my mind).

That gives scope for enjoyable speculation, rather than rejection of ideas one way or another. No dogmas from me on this.

All the best to you, Pops.

---

P.S. On re-reading my post and reflection on the content, I realise that the term "completed infinity" makes no sense - surely infinities by definition
are never completed ??? But I think I know what you mean - I take it that all you mean is actual realities in our actual existence. Granting you
that, actual infinities, should they exist may not be part of our personal experiences, (or maybe not yet, anyway).

---

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

I guess you are your own arbiter of what makes sense TO YOU.

Applying this mathematical partially defined entity to reality is exactly like applying human psychological conditions to reality.

Both make just as much sense.

Tell me why you think you can apply this invented mathematical entity to reality?

You can apply no other number to reality.

There is no "one" in the real world. One rock is not "one". It is a rock.

And there certainly is no infinity.

Just on that, untermensche, there may be no "one", as you put it, but we can recognise one rock, from no rocks, or more
than one rock. So "one", as in "one rock", is a descriptive term, and I believe that even apes and monkeys can recognise the
difference between "one", and "many". I don't think that we could recognise infinity, even if we could see it.

As such, infinity has to remain a descriptive concept, just as "one", "none" and "many" are.

Cheers, Pops.

 

[untermensche]

I guess you are your own arbiter of what makes sense TO YOU.

Applying this mathematical partially defined entity to reality is exactly like applying human psychological conditions to reality.

Both make just as much sense.

Tell me why you think you can apply this invented mathematical entity to reality?

You can apply no other number to reality.

There is no "one" in the real world. One rock is not "one". It is a rock.

And there certainly is no infinity.

Just on that, untermensche, there may be no "one", as you put it, but we can recognise one rock, from no rocks, or more
than one rock. So "one", as in "one rock", is a descriptive term, and I believe that even apes and monkeys can recognise the
difference between "one", and "many". I don't think that we could recognise infinity, even if we could see it.

As such, infinity has to remain a descriptive concept, just as "one", "none" and "many" are.

Cheers, Pops.

Show me something "infinity" describes.

Infinity is not a quantity.

To use it as a quantity in the real world is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

Alternatively, untermensche, one who argues that real completed infinity conflicts with reality is making a positive claim, and I for one
simply don't accept that.

It is applying an imaginary term that is not a quantity to reality.

Conflict.

 

[bilby]

---

P.S. On re-reading my post and reflection on the content, I realise that the term "completed infinity" makes no sense - surely infinities by definition
are never completed ??? But I think I know what you mean - I take it that all you mean is actual realities in our actual existence. Granting you
that, actual infinities, should they exist may not be part of our personal experiences, (or maybe not yet, anyway).

---

Point of information - an infinity can be completed. While it is true that something which never completes must be infinite, it is not true that infinities cannot complete - a simple counterexample is the infinity that never began, and is open ended in the past but not the future.

Another example is infinities which fall between two limits - the set of all rational numbers between 1 and 2, for example, has a beginning (1); an end (2); and yet remains provably infinite.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as an infinity that never began. The idea does not make any sense.

A series that never begins does not exist.

There is no mathematical term "never began". There is no mathematical series that can exist as beginning from the undefined.

There is no human that can explain how something can exist yet have no beginning to that existence. It is not a rational idea. It is a mystical magical idea.

It is voodoo math.